Re: New version of todo-mode.el (announcement + user guide)

[Stefan Monnier]

> Thank you for the vote of confidence.  Regarding compatibility, as
> explained in the last section of the user guide I posted, the way the
> new and old todo file formats treat the item date header makes them
> practically incompatible.

Too bad, but not surprising.

> However, I've provided a command which converts a copy of an old-style
> todo file into new-style one and a copy of an old-style
> `todo-file-done' file into a new-style todo archive file.

That's not sufficient for people who use the same TODO file on various
machines whereas those machines don't all have the same Emacs version
(hence some will have the old todo-mode and others will have the new one).

> - A third alternative is to install the new version as posted with the
>   new name and prefix in place of the old version and move that to
>   lisp/obsolete/, so people could still use it but would have more
>   incentive to use the new version.

That sounds like the better solution.  Even better if the old and the
new code can be both in use at the same time (e.g. if you have
converted some of your todo files but not all).

> - Although I eliminated, changed or reimplemented almost all the code in
>   the old version, there are bits here and there that I've retained, as
>   well as the basic concepts and UI of handling todo lists.  So should
>   the original author, Oliver Seidel, still be listed as an author, or
>   is it sufficient to acknowledge him in the commentary (as I do in the
>   code I posted)?

I don't see why we shouldn't keep him in the list of authors.

> - If Glenn Morris approves, can I install the patch I included for
>   diary-lib.el?

I'm OK with whatever he agrees with in this respect.

> - The code makes use of a powerset function, which Emacs doesn't have.
>   I tried but couldn't come up with my own algorithm but found a
>   recursive Common Lisp implementation and an iterative one in C on a
>   website whose content is licensed under the GFDL.  I reimplemented the
>   latter in Elisp, so at least the code is not literally copied.  Is
>   this a cause for concern with respect to copyright assignment?

It sounds borderline.

> - I've tried to follow the Emacs coding conventions and used checkdoc,
>   but one of the things I'm uncertain about is the new "<prefix>--"

Lots of packages don't follow this convention.  It's not a problem.

> - I also have a question about documentation.  The user guide I posted
>   is certainly too long and detailed for the commentary section of the
>   source code, and I guess also for the Emacs manual.  Should I try to
>   destill it down to a reasonable manual entry, added to the diary
>   chapter?  If so, I'd be grateful for suggestions about what to omit or
>   how to make it otherwise suitable.  Alternatively, if it is deemed
>   worthwhile including all the information, it could be added as
>   separate manual.

Either way is fine by me, but a separate todo-mode Texinfo manual sounds
perfectly acceptable.


        Stefan